In my torts class, I often compare the different approaches and doctrines in the United States and the United Kingdom. One of the most pronounced is the position and authority of physicians on issues like consent and malpractice. This week produced a particularly striking example. British doctors are seeking to take a 19-year-old critically ill female patient off the intensive care despite her objections and those of her parents. Unlike most such cases, the woman known only as “ST” is conscious and communicative. Yet, the doctors argue that she is not being realistic about her chances of survival from a rare disorder. Now a British court has agreed and ordered that she can be placed on end-of-life care against her will.
ST is suffering from a rare genetic mitochondrial disease that is progressively degenerative. The case has similarities to that of Charlie Gard, an infant who was removed from life support at the insistence of doctors despite objections from the parents. The Gard family was seeking to take Charlie to the United States for experimental treatment.
ST has been in the ICU for the past year, requiring a ventilator and a feeding tube. She also requires regular dialysis due to chronic kidney damage from her disease. She wants to be allowed to travel to Canada for an experimental treatment but the doctors oppose the plan and say that she is not accepting the realities of her terminal illness. They say that she is “actively dying” without any hope of resuming life outside of intensive care.
Her deeply religious family have spent their entire life savings on her care and has complained that a “transparency order” requested by the hospital barred their ability to give details on the case to help raise public funds.
What is so remarkable about this case is that it is not an infant or a comatose patient. The court found that ST “is able to communicate reasonably well with her doctors with assistance from her mother and, on occasion, speech therapists.” Moreover, two psychiatrists testified that she is mentally competent to make decisions about her own care.
Despite all the difficulties which currently confront her, ST is able to communicate reasonably well with her doctors with assistance from her mother and, on occasion, speech therapists. Over the course of the last week she has engaged in two separate capacity assessments. I heard evidence from two consultant psychiatrists whose conclusions in relation to her capacity in both domains are set out in full written reports. . . .
She has been described by those who know and love her as “a fighter”. That is how she sees herself. At the heart of the issues in this case is what ST and her family perceive to be a ray of hope in the form of an experimental nucleoside treatment outside the United Kingdom which might offer her hope of an improved quality of life, albeit a life which is likely to end prematurely in terms of a normal life expectancy. She has told her doctors that she wants to do everything she can to extend her life. She said to Dr C, one of the psychiatrists who visited her last week, “This is my wish. I want to die trying to live. We have to try everything”. [Court’s emphasis] Whilst she recognises that she may not benefit from further treatment, she is resistant to any attempt to move to a regime of palliative care because she wants to stay alive long enough to be able to travel to Canada or North America where there is at least the prospect that she may be accepted as part of a clinical trial. . . .
ST is well aware that she has been offered a very poor prognosis by her doctors. She acknowledges that they have told her that she will die but she does not believe them. She points to her recovery from previous life-threatening episodes whilst she has been a patient at the intensive care unit. She believes she has the resilience and the strength to stay alive for long enough to undergo treatment abroad and she wishes the court to acknowledge her right to make that decision for herself.
Nevertheless, the judge found that she is mentally incapable of making decisions for herself because “she does not believe the information she has been given by her doctors.” The court appears to reject her ability to make this decision because she is making the wrong decision:
In my judgment . . . ST is unable to make a decision for herself in relation to her future medical treatment, including the proposed move to palliative care, because she does not believe the information she has been given by her doctors. Absent that belief, she cannot use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision. This is a very different position from the act of making an unwise, but otherwise capacitous, decision. An unwise decision involves the juxtaposition of both an objective overview of the wisdom of a decision to act one way or another and the subjective reasons informing that person’s decision to elect to take a particular course. However unwise, the decision must nevertheless involve that essential understanding of the information and the use, weighing and balancing of the information in order to reach a decision. In ST’s case, an essential element of the process of decision-making is missing because she is unable to use or weigh information which has been shown to be both reliable and true.
Accordingly, the court ruled that decisions about ST’s further care should be determined by the Court of Protection based on an assessment of her best interests. Her “best interest,” according to the doctors, is to die.
Thus, the courts have declared that ST cannot choose to continue life-extending treatment and can be forced into palliative care against her will. The logic of the decision is chilling. The court is told that ST has cognitive and communicative abilities to make such decisions. However, because the court disagrees with her desire to continue to fight to live, she is treated as effectively incompetent. It seems like the judicial version of Henry Ford’s promise that customers could pick any color car so long as it is black.
Here is the opinion: In the Matter of ST
Please out the identites of these providers and taoe part in a campaign warning them they too are past their prime, and regardless of their objections MUST have their candle snuffed out
We should recognize that this unsympathetic attitude to life, at the beginning in the womb and near the end when death is hanging over us, is not just an attitude in officially socialist medical systems. It is an inherent part of the Left-wing mind. Let us remember Dr. Ezekial Emanuel, the “architect of Obamacare”, who famously opined that people who 75 should not even plan on living any longer. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4360549/ If Dr. Emanel had his way, I would currently be writing to you from beyond the grave. (There must be some people who read this blog and still vote Democrat. Why?)
“and still vote Democrat. Why?”
Read their comments and you will have your answer. I see it all around me. They see themselves as virtuous because of “inclusivity”, and it has become a religion for them. Claim aggrieved status and they will champion your cause, right down to drag queens reading inappropriate books to 1st graders at the local library. This virtue then gives them the moral high ground to do whatever else they wish, making completely unpopular issues mainstream simply by virtue signaling and shaming.
Look at Dennis McIntyre, who called a commenter a racist, simply because he cracked the same joke that many of us have over the years. This joke was a line spoken by a black character to a white one in an old sitcom, and the punch line was that Fani Willis has the same last name. Ostensibly, because she is black, it was racist in Dennis eyes. He then attempted to cut off any debate (not that he would debate because he is a coward and a fraud), by exclaiming that anyone who disagreed with him was also a racist. In the face of these kinds of attacks, many weak minds have been brow beaten into joining the Party. It’s literally a play right out of 1984.
We are told by apologists for socialized medicine that: “US capitalist insurance companies do the same thing every day.”
Apparently they do not grasp this fundamental distinction: A voluntary trade between a customer and store owner (money for beer), versus using a gun to hold up the liquor store.
But, then, tyrants always blur that distinction.
Welcome to socialized medicine.
The issue is that the cost of taking care of one patient who is ‘going to die anyway’… could be used to cover the costs of treatment for many others.
Think about that for a second.
Is that what you want?
I’ve seen and experienced the NHS in the UK first hand.
Socialized medicine is bad.
Many Physicians left the AMA because it doesn’t represent the values that doctors should have.
-G
Anon: “I’ve seen and experienced the NHS in the UK first hand.
Socialized medicine is bad.”
+++
Not doing well in Canada either. Thousands upon thousands of Canadians come to the US for care they can’t get in ‘free’ Canadian health care. I’ve read that Pittsburgh has more MRI machines than all of Canada. If you need a fast diagnosis with something like cauda equina you are out of luck in Canada. But if you are crippled because of it they have assisted suicide or murder on the menu.
2005 Supreme Court of Canada, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin: “Access to a waiting list is not access to health.
Such a persistent problem. You would think it would have been long since addressed since it is such a good system.
The system works if you have a surplus of money and supplies.
It fails when your demand outstrips your supply so that you have to ration healthcare.
That’s the problem when you have a government run system.
And yes, its that simple.
-G
Despite being a small country the UK has an NHS that is said to be the third largest employer in the world. Some say it is only the 5th. Either way they have far too many bureaucrats and, they say, not enough doctors and nurses. Governments are bureaucracies so they naturally tend to hire their own domains and, who needs doctors and nurses.
This Yes Minister clip on a hospital full of staff but no patients gets too close to the truth.
https://youtu.be/x-5zEb1oS9A?si=uW0Pzt5tLv0pn3Kt
It seems that more and more the regimes in power find multiple reasons people need to die, quickly.
Hopefully they have enough blood cult lust and can save the world from the humanity carbon CO2 virus that destroyed the ice caps and raised the ocean levels 400 feet.
Dang it’s a dull Sunday night. Let’s liven it up. FJB and I’m voting for Trump, Blacks for Trump, Latinos for Trump
A senator chose his son to nominate judges for the bench. The son, a lawyer, selected a guy and the father endorsed him. The sone wins billion dollar verdicts with that judge presiding.
Does that suggest impropriety?
You have NO proof!!!!
Proof of that is provable beyond the proven, the no proof proof is 100% proof.
(DM, dm me, and let me know if I proved it.)
𝐃𝐨 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 (𝐃𝐍𝐑) 𝐋𝐚𝐰𝐬 𝐛𝐲 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟑
Federal Stance on DNR orders
Do Not Resuscitate orders are widely recognized in America as being an advanced directive that anyone over the age of 18 can include in their medical documents, provided they are of sound mind and body. Federal law allows all patients to consult with their doctor on the preference of their medical treatment options if the situation ever proves to be dangerous or fatal. Certain DNR orders can even include palliative care and other forms related to this manner.
As such, states may have different procedures for obtaining a DNR order but must remain uniform. This is to prevent confusion across state lines, provided someone with a DNR is traveling and falls ill near a hospital outside of their state. While some obtain a DNR for religious purposes, others want to spare themselves or their family the trouble of making hard decisions when it comes to that point in their life.
All states will have a uniform law that allows medical professionals to check whether the person has a DNR or not. Due to the nature of the issue, medical professionals who cannot find a DNR or view someone in a critical condition without prior knowledge must perform their services to the best of their ability and assume that there is no DNR in place. The law is very careful in protecting medical practitioners from conducting their duties without fear of unnecessary reprisal.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/do-not-resuscitate-laws-by-states
And what does this have to do with the issue.
The issue here is that the courts are saying its ok to refuse to treat someone because the cost of the care which may either extend their life, or ease the pain, is too costly and the funds could be better used elsewhere.
Its the reverse of DNR.
Learn the facts before postsing.
𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐑𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬𝐨𝐧, 𝐔.𝐒. 𝐝𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫, 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐚𝐭 𝟕𝟓
WASHINGTON, Sept 2 (Reuters) – Bill Richardson, a former U.S. diplomat, congressman, energy secretary and New Mexico governor who made his mark on the world stage by securing the release of Americans and others held by various autocratic governments, has died at the age of 75, the Richardson Center for Global Engagement said on Saturday.
Richardson, who made an unsuccessful 2008 bid to become the first Hispanic U.S. president, passed away in his sleep at his summer home in Chatham, Massachusetts, vice president of the Richardson Center Mickey Bergman said in a statement.
By Will Dunham ~ September 2, 2023
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bill-richardson-us-diplomat-troubleshooter-dead-75-2023-09-02/
I’ve been pulling secret documents from my underwear and socks and hiding them under the local construction trailers in ‘homage.
Her judges and everyone else denying her care are dying, too, and should be denied health care,
“Nevertheless, the judge found that she is mentally incapable of making decisions for herself because ‘she does not believe the information she has been given by her doctors.'” Isn’t this Jack Smith’s reasoning against Trump? If someone is “told” that something is true from some authoritative source (usually the government), he/she cannot reject it and still be considered mentally competent. In fact, it is the same kind of reasoning used by the Soviet Union to send dissidents to mental instututions: if you don’t believe us, you must be nuts.
It’s literally Orwellian . . . in which if someone is accused of a crime, and steadfastly claims to be innocent, that is considered proof of guilt because a guilty person would claim innocence. This is directly analogous: she says she wants to live, which proves she lacks the capacity to make such a decision because anyone with capacity would have believed whatever the doctors had told them. Therefore, lacking the capacity, the court must decide for her.
And what does the court say? The court says: “die, b-tch, you’re using up valuable resources. And no, you can’t fly to Canada to participate in a clinical trial that might save your life, and even if it doesn’t might contribute to medical knowledge.”
That’s really the sick, sick, face saving, evil, arrogant, inhospitable, reactionary, hate filled thing, not letting her travel to other nations for experimental treatment.
This after the lies of the regime doctors covid fiascos, is really astonishing.
Now now now, you’re sounding like malinformation is your forte.
No telling the truth at all ever if it reduces cohesion to the government’s dictates !
Yes, and the “information” in each case isn’t information. It’s opinion.
Under the Constitution, this patient would be adhering to the contract with her private, free market, healthcare insurance provider and paying for uncovered care with personal funds or funds provided by family members, friends or a private, free market charity.
Healthcare providers and hospitals would refuse service after the patient’s healthcare insurance coverage expired and stopped paying the bills. It’s simple.
The Constitution provides Congress the power to tax for debt, defense and general Welfare. General means all or the whole – general does not mean one, some, a few or part. Congress has no power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favoritism or charity. The only thing general Welfare can possibly consist of is basic infrastructure and essential commodities which are used equally by all or the whole to proceed well such as roads, water, post office, electricity, rubbish collection, sewers, etc.
Things must be different under the Communist Manifesto in the United Kingdom wherein companies and workers are subject to confiscatory taxation in support of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and benefits accrue “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
The “dictatorship of the proletariat,” per Karl Marx, is the functional equivalent of “the lunatics have taken charge of the asylum,” per Richard A Rowland, respecting the eccentric and peculiar Hollywood artists (i.e. workers) assuming control of the complex, executive operations of the corporate movie-making industry.
Tragic story. “I had a teenage cardiac patient on ECMO longer than necessary save for the parents insistence to keep going.”
Did you know ECMO would not offer the patient any real chances and benefits before you started it? If you knew, why would you even offer it? Had you no authority to decline or to not participate in the ECHMO?
You mention Steve Jobs and your teenage patient as having wealth but ST does not. Are we to gather that wealthy individuals are more likely to have costly and worthless treatments offered by physicians and hospitals? As you said, “Pain and suffering were extended for selfish reasons.” Whose selfish reasons? Distraught parents who have not been brought to a level of understanding by their healthcare providers?
So if you don’t decide our way, if you don’t decide in favor of your own death . . . then you’re not competent to make decisions on the subject. Literally Orwellian.
And even though the Canadian facility would benefit from the case in terms of research, the court says “no, way – die, b-tch!”
God help us.
She has committed no crime, and yet the court has sentenced her to death based on deeply flawed reasoning. I hope she has a right of appeal and that this ruling lives forever in infamy.
Aw, poor soul, cry me a river. Or you could start a legal blog and decide not to run stories like this one.
Only a heart of cold, dead stone could have your reaction to this story.
It’s strange that Darren deleted the original comment, but left the reaction in place as if it was commenting on the story.
“ST is suffering from a rare genetic mitochondrial disease that is progressively degenerative.”
This fact has probably been known for ST’s entire life. Yet, the ‘doctors’ likely repeatedly intervened and probably at significant cost even with them knowing the eventual outcome. That circumstance mitigates the argument the ‘doctors’ currently present that “doctors argue that she is not being realistic about her chances of survival from a rare disorder.”
Likely, at the times of prior interventions, those ‘doctors’ provided the patient and her family with hope (otherwise, why would there be an agreed to intervention). And it is (and was) incumbent upon those ‘doctors’ and to explain to the patient and family at each and every intervention that, at some point, further treatment was futile, hope was no longer in play and plans for that time had to be made. From the article,it appears those plans were not made.
Now, those same ‘doctors’, who previously ignored costs and efforts in the face of a “terminal illness”, claim those very items as reasons to withhold further care from a patient who is at the age of majority and understands her circumstances? Sorry ‘doctors’, you played God when you started injecting/tube feeding/performing intubation/ventilating /etc. a terminally ill patient. But now you tire of your efforts and waste so you go to Court? ‘Doctors’, you patently failed in your duty as physicians by not preparing the patient and family (for decades in ST’s case) for this situation. How fitting that you turn to a Court for the decisions and actions you failed to take! How dangerous your failure to take actions are for the rest of us!
“She wants to be allowed to travel to Canada for an experimental treatment but the doctors oppose the plan and say that she is not accepting the realities of her terminal illness. They say that she is “actively dying” without any hope of resuming life outside of intensive care.” Real ‘doctors’ would have ascertained whether the treatments in the US or Canada were viable options for this patient. If they were and assuming all agreed, the patient should have been enrolled in those options long ago (the expense of transport to Canada from the UK versus a year in the ICU would likely seem trivial). Further, the patient should have been informed of the costs and risks of transport to such treatment centers (assuming she would have been accepted as a candidate) and decisions made accordingly.
One prior commenter ( September 3, 2023 at 10:31 AM) states the obvious that we have learned from COVID (remember ivermectin?): “There is no right, either in the US or UK, to receive any medical treatment you want. Doctors and hospitals may refuse to provide it, and insurance companies or NHS may refuse to pay for it.” However, that is not really what is at stake here with this court decision. The real danger in this action against ST: Despite your ability to make you own health decisions, the government can override your decision and decide that you are ‘unable to make a decision for yourself in relation to your future medical treatment, because you do not believe the information you has been given by your doctors.’ Did we learn nothing from COVID?
Brad,
Roughly speaking:
To an insurer you are a customer. To socialized medicine you are state property.
But perhaps there is a clinic in the US that would like to take her case in the interest of research science.
Mitochondrial diseases have a wide presentation, with some presenting at birth where patients die at infancy, and others present in youth and die thereafter. Treatment is based on symptoms in all cases. Cures do not exist given it is a genetic disorder
ST is 21 y/o and is dependent on dialysis, ventilator, nasal-gastric nutrition. ST is dying. I had a teenage cardiac patient on ECMO longer than necessary save for the parents insistence to keep going. The teen’s orifices started to ooze blood because the tissues were undergoing necrosis, i.e. decomposing. Turning off the ECMO was a hellish experience where the chief of cardiothoracic surgery and I both sobbed outside the ICU away from the parents and team. However, like with ST, we all knew where it was leading and it was unnecessary. Pain and suffering were extended for selfish reasons. The parents were wealthy and not particularly religious, unlike ST.
Mitochondria are required organelles in all of our 30 trillion cells. They not only are responsible for energy production (e.g. ATP), but also for homeostasis and programmed cell death (PCD). PCD is a biochemical response (e.g. apoptosis, necroptosis, ferroptosis, pyroptosis, parthanatos, and paraptosis) to exogenous or endogenous perturbations due to pathogens, normal aging or damage (e.g. hypertension, Type 2 Diabetes, Obesity, Sedentary lifestyle, etc). We are not told which subtype of the Mitochondrial diseases ST has. ST has mitochondria that can not perform as required, presumably in all of her 30 trillion cells. Regardless there are no treatments approved by the FDA for mitochondrial diseases. Expecting the UK health system to offer cutting edge therapies is not part of reality. The UK offers medicine not fit for dogs but Brits elected that type of medical “care”.
In theory, ST’s parents could take her out of the UK and travel to Canada or America, if signing her out of the hospital AMA (against medical advice) exists in the UK. However her parents would en route of traveling have to continue her life support systems of ventilation, dialysis and nasal-gastric nutrition. Not realistic, no matter if they had the financial means. That type of intervention would be more rare than having mitochondrial disease.
This case is reminiscent of Steve Jobs death. Jobs was obviously wealthy but when he succumbed to pancreatic cancer, he too defied the medical consensus. He underwent costly and some argue unethical treatments by taking from others what should have been theirs. He got them because of his wealth and name. He died anyways.
The parents need to put ST in hospice and stop prolonging her/their pain and suffering. While I am loathe to agree with Brits on health care matters, no country offers a cure. Gene therapy is currently being investigated for this disease but as of yet, those afflicted are treated symptomatically.
Free links:
Kanungo S, Morton J, Neelakantan M, Ching K, Saeedian J, Goldstein A. Mitochondrial disorders. Ann Transl Med. 2018 Dec;6(24):475. doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.12.13.
Russell OM, Gorman GS, Lightowlers RN, Turnbull DM. Mitochondrial Diseases: Hope for the Future. Cell. 2020 Apr 2;181(1):168-188. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.051.
The objections to what the British are doing have little to do with her medical condition. It is dangerous to provide the government with such power when they misused it in the past and are increasingly misusing it in the present.
Based on Turley’s info, Canadian researchers might want to try experimental treatments. If so, the British should permit her transfer to Canada. We are all aware of the hopeless condition and the incredible costs of doing so, but that is a possibility.
It is not her life in the balance, for I think she is gone under the most favorable circumstances. It is the lives of the many British citizens that will go unnoticed. Bad cases make bad law. That is what is happening in this case.
You deny health care when someone is dying? No one should receive health care. If you are born, you are dying.
Travel to the UK, and provide her all of the health care she requests. Your response would likely be NIMBY. Easy to demand others provide for x, y and z from an anonymous yahoo with a keyboard in a mancave. Tossing out judgments anonymously is a coward’s game. Try being Jeremiah, the most well known prophet from the Old Testament. Now that’s real bravado. True, Jeremiah likely died form his peers killing him but at least he died with integrity. Ask Seth Meyers about Jeremiah.
You duped me, O LORD, and I let myself be duped;
you were too strong for me, and you triumphed.
All the day I am an object of laughter;
everyone mocks me.
Whenever I speak, I must cry out,
violence and outrage is my message;
the word of the LORD has brought me
derision and reproach all the day.
I say to myself, I will not mention him,
I will speak in his name no more.
But then it becomes like fire burning in my heart,
imprisoned in my bones;
I grow weary holding it in, I cannot endure it.
Jeremiah 20:7
Get to know the Prophet Jeremiah. His burden should be yours and all of us as well, including S. Meyer!
that was my post
“Travel to the UK, and provide her all of the health care she requests.”
Estovir, you are intelligent with ideas, many of which I agree with, but you frequently debate the wrong argument. Emotions should not control debate or be a substitute for logic.
“the word of the LORD has brought me…”
You interpreted Jeremiah wrongfully. The State is not the Lord. Jeremiah preached against idol worship and that the Lord was supreme. Bowing to Marxism is idol worship. Socialized medicine and national health insurance are both products of Marxism, where instead of the Lord or man deciding life and death, the State usurps God’s position and does it.
No one ever receives 100% of their needs or wants, including healthcare, which we must accept while we deal with these earthly problems.
My mentioning of Jeremiah was in reference to all of us, but especially to:
Brad Markle says: September 3, 2023 at 5:52 PM
You deny health care when someone is dying? No one should receive health care.
My thoughts of the UK govt controlling the l health system were abundantly clear: not fit for dogs.
JT wrote:
…a “transparency order” requested by the hospital barred their ability to give details on the case to help raise public funds.
As stated as well, the patient is welcome to sign AMA and travel to her desired destination. All she needs to do is mention to prospective treatments centers in Canada or US that she has mitochondrial disease and is on a ventilator, dialysis and gastric feeding tube. If those centers are interested they can adopt her and go from there.
I fail to understand why anyone would live in the UK. I disliked the culture I encountered in London. I traveled to Glasgow when a Scot flew me there gratis to explore importing US oncology products to the UK for his dying father due to cancer, and perhaps give Brits an alternative to oncology drugs not on the NICE formulary. We learned later via US attorneys that our proposed business would run afoul of US drug import/export laws so I walked away. The UK govt is more broken than ours and their health care model is one to be avoided
Did you go to the gym today? Do so. I trained heavy for back and biceps plus cardio. The gym was empty this early morning.
Health = wealth
Jeremiah indeed died with integrity, but I didn’t know that we knew the manner of his death, which leads me to ask, how do you know (or assume) he died from his peers killing him? I don’t think the circumstances surrounding his death are known.
Estovir, we agree about UK health. I hope we agree regarding socialized medicine.
“the patient is welcome to sign AMA…”
That opens the door to a lot of ethical questions. Kaiser Permanente faced that question years back. IMO, they were unethical in forcing people to end active care and be admitted to Kaiser’s Hospice for the same reason of monetary gain based on the death of another. It is one thing not to add care, but removing it contrary to the knowledgeable desire of the patient leads to some awful questions with answers you might not like. There, you enter the realm of divine power.
Brad, you are right. We are all dying. Gradually and then suddenly.
Regardless of what you think she should do, and mentioning her parents is a red herring, it should be her choice.
An arrogate doctor? Who would have (thunk) such? An undisciplined jurist never! Again, and again it’s the same; those that have taken control cast their dystopian views on society. The new social order is making State the God of masses. The lowest castes of society are subjugated to indisputable claims the state has seized regardless of prevailing rights, the primary being the right to life. This particular case is an example of runaway authority, the subject wants to live and has done nothing against the law, yet a state representative adjudicates them to death for no other reason than in their superior judgment it best they accept death.